Occupy Wall Street Demands

[derf]

But large companies should still not be allowed to donate unlimited funds to campaigns without the politicians reporting where the money comes from.

If bp wants to elect a pro gulf of mexico deep water drilling candidate then all they have to do is give 50 million to crossroads super pac 501c, then that organization gives that money over to a reporting political action committee or directly to a candidate and pooff, legal money laundering.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by derf

But large companies should still not be allowed to donate unlimited funds to campaigns without the politicians reporting where the money comes from.

If bp wants to elect a pro gulf of mexico deep water drilling candidate then all they have to do is give 50 million to crossroads super pac 501c, then that organization gives that money over to a reporting political action committee or directly to a candidate and pooff, legal money laundering.

Would you support the restriction of all campaign contributions and publicly finance campaigns?
Each candidate gets a set amount.
Make allowances for limited types of contributions.

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by derf

But large companies should still not be allowed to donate unlimited funds to campaigns without the politicians reporting where the money comes from.

But what if Oprah did? Or Bill Gates? Or fuck it, Warren Buffett? They are individuals so they should have a right to do what they want with their money. Or is it okay that millions of people donate a max of say $5k to a candidate because they promise them free Ipods and unicorns by taking money from a single enitity?

Politicians reporting on them. I'd be up for debate on that.

Probably one of the most important things ever written in American history when it comes to Democracy. And a prime example of why our founding fathers hated the idea of a democracy.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Originally Posted by James Madison

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person (sounds like what many people think our government is), can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists

Are we a Democratic Republic now? With the passing of the 17th amendment, maybe so. Maybe a foreign king who visited the Greek assembly said it best "I find it astonishing that here wise men speak on public affairs, while fools decide them". A democracy of any kind would accomplish just that.

[derf]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

But what if Oprah did? Or Bill Gates? Or fuck it, Warren Buffett? They are individuals so they should have a right to do what they want with their money. Or is it okay that millions of people donate a max of say $5k to a candidate because they promise them free Ipods and unicorns by taking money from a single enitity?

Politicians reporting on them. I'd be up for debate on that.

To be honest I don't care who gives what to whoever in whatever amount. I wouldnt care if BP gave a bazillion dollars to elect Michelle Bachman as long as it is documented that she took that kind of money or that an organization supporting her took that money. Oprah gave obama a shit load of anonymous donations through the last election through shady loopholes in campaign finance laws. My issue is that as a publicly elected individual politicians should be required to report who donated to them, but the rules have been changed in favor of people and corporations with super large sums of money to give anonymously

crossroads america and crossroads GPS are two great examples of how campaign finance rules are avoided in favor of supporting on politician over another. Crossroads GPS is a 501c4 that can take donations anonymously, and they donate all their to ultra conservative political action committees such as crossroads america. Crossroads america is a 527 PAc which is required to report all donation it receives, but if I donate to crossroads GPS then that money goes to crossroads america and is reported as being donated by crossroads GPS. Those two organizations share the same damn office building! Along with a few other conservative PACs. That should be illegal no matter which side of the aisle it comes from, its a loophole that needs to be closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)

Again give all the damn money you want, but make sure its report-able.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Probably one of the most important things ever written in American history when it comes to Democracy. And a prime example of why our founding fathers hated the idea of a democracy.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm



Are we a Democratic Republic now? With the passing of the 17th amendment, maybe so. Maybe a foreign king who visited the Greek assembly said it best "I find it astonishing that here wise men speak on public affairs, while fools decide them". A democracy of any kind would accomplish just that.

The box says the cupcakes have to be in the oven for 21 minutes (adjusted for altitude), so that gives me 20.5 minutes to explain this shit to you.

Let's start with the Founding Fathers, and what "they" supposedly wanted. Are you fucking serious with that shit? Who the fuck are you, John Conner's travel agent? The Fucking Fuckers disagreed with each other half the time, and were wrong the other half. 3/5ths of a man? Yeah, that sounds about right...Assholes.

What they were not, was a super human panel of wise aliens. They were just regular fucking people, doing their best to plagiarize England's system of government, without being to obvious about it (fail, btw).

Claiming to "know" what they wanted, is retarded, because they weren't even sure what they wanted. The FF's were all over the goddamn map.

So. This is what they wanted:

They wanted us to be a combination of a Republic, a Democracy, and a Federation, because just one of those choices on it's own, would have made some people happy, and everyone knows that that role of Government, is to make as many people unhappy as possible.

Point being, there was never a true consensus among the FF's. There was only compromise.

I have to go do that thing with the toothpick now. SOME people say you should just go by time, (Federalist dickheads) but I still want to see a clean tooth pick, or I'm leaving them in the oven.

JC

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

The box says the cupcakes have to be in the oven for 21 minutes (adjusted for altitude), so that gives me 20.5 minutes to explain this shit to you.

Let's start with the Founding Fathers, and what "they" supposedly wanted. Are you fucking serious with that shit? Who the fuck are you, John Conner's travel agent? The Fucking Fuckers disagreed with each other half the time, and were wrong the other half. 3/5ths of a man? Yeah, that sounds about right...Assholes.

What they were not, was a super human panel of wise aliens. They were just regular fucking people, doing their best to plagiarize England's system of government, without being to obvious about it (fail, btw).

Claiming to "know" what they wanted, is retarded, because they weren't even sure what they wanted. The FF's were all over the goddamn map.

So. This is what they wanted:

They wanted us to be a combination of a Republic, a Democracy, and a Federation, because just one of those choices on it's own, would have made some people happy, and everyone knows that that role of Government, is to make as many people unhappy as possible.

Point being, there was never a true consensus among the FF's. There was only compromise.

I have to go do that thing with the toothpick now. SOME people say you should just go by time, (Federalist dickheads) but I still want to see a clean tooth pick, or I'm leaving them in the oven.

JC

It took you 20.5 minutes to type that?

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

were wrong the other half. 3/5ths of a man? Yeah, that sounds about right...Assholes.

JC

Hahahahaha. Did someone just throw the race card?


The argument was wether to have a more central government or be a federation of states. Picture it more like one side saying they want all power in the federal and the other wanting to be more like the U.N. Then they met in the middle.

The issue of Democracy was never an issue from either side. It wasn't an issue until politicans realized that they could say "democracy" and it made voters feel all warm and tingly in their pants.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Hahahahaha. Did someone just throw the race card?


The argument was wether to have a more central government or be a federation of states. Picture it more like one side saying they want all power in the federal and the other wanting to be more like the U.N. Then they met in the middle.

The issue of Democracy was never an issue from either side. It wasn't an issue until politicans realized that they could say "democracy" and it made voters feel all warm and tingly in their pants.

what I find lulzy is when certain people start talking about the founding fathers and the bill of rights and how we should stick to a "to the letter" interpretation of the way it was originally written (because amendments and changes since 1850 are for queers).

The bill of right was neither intended nor interpreted (at the time) to apply to citizens...or states. It originally applied only to the federal government.
The federal government cannot pass laws that butt heads with the bill of rights. The states however can say "fuck that shit" and restrict freedom of speech...gun rights...all that crap.

So whenever you start talking constitutional origins, you are effectively talking about that period of time when the bill of rights did not apply to state citizens.
"Hi!! I'm a constitutional conservative!! I do not believe you have the right to free speech, the right to pop a cap in an ass..the right to tell a soldier to fuck off...the right to a jury trial.. all sthat fun stuff.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Know what that bit means?

It means that (up until the 14th amendment)...the federal government could give two shits about what the fuck a state does to its citizens and would rather not be involved in all that business. At most they would invoke the commerce clause to get states from getting all up in each others skirts.

Come motherfucker...lets talk some constitutional law!!!!

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Hahahahaha. Did someone just throw the race card?

No, someone just threw out the, "Hey, maybe these guys weren't as forward thinking as they're cracked up to be" card.

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

The argument was wether to have a more central government or be a federation of states. Picture it more like one side saying they want all power in the federal and the other wanting to be more like the U.N. Then they met in the middle.

I know. That's what the word compromise means. No cupcake for you.

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

The issue of Democracy was never an issue from either side. It wasn't an issue until politicans realized that they could say "democracy" and it made voters feel all warm and tingly in their pants.

Semantics.

Either one is a form of democracy, just not an absolute democracy, in which everybody would vote on everything.

JC

[EpyonXero]

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/15/you...m-is-fair.html